[markbs]

Everyone attending an advisory day, whether for advice or to observe, should be given a feedback form to fill in. As an organiser, I collect in these forms, have a quick check to see if there were any problems which were mistakes in running the day or could be improvements for future events. I share that with the advisors when thanking them for coming, and I send all the forms to Distinctions. That is the standard procedure, and if it hasn't happened at some days then it should. If anyone has feedback which they haven't put on a form, or if they want to make specific representations about the advisory days, then write or email directly to Distinctions. This forum is for discussion amongst the members: it is not a channel for personal correspondence.

More recently, everyone attending has also been given a document explaining the purpose and limitations of the days. Previously this was just read out by the lead advisor, but it was thought better that everyone has a copy to take away. I can only paraphrase that content here, and please accept that I omit a lot of it. On an advisory day, the advice on a panel is given by one person. That person is part of a large system where panel members have training, and are managed by panel chairmen, and are moderated by the Distinctions Advisory Board. The purpose is to try and create a consensus amongst panel members as to what are the acceptable current standards for each level of distinction. Nevertheless, advice by one person may vary from that of another. The advice given may be about individual images, about whole panels, and perhaps about whether a panel is likely or not to succeed. There will always be personal variation in any subjective opinion. That is why assessment panels typically have five voting members, as that will even out variations of opinion and allow panel members to influence one another towards what we would hope is the current consensus view.

Whether the standards have gone up; gone down; or changed over the years is a commonly raised question. I don't know. It is easy to fall into a formulaic trap. Those who haven't passed yet may think that the standards keep rising. Those who passed some time ago may think that the standards are now lower (the 'going to the dogs' philosophy). My guess is that the expectations of the assessors, which is probably a better way to think of it than 'standards', are bound to change as certain aspects of photography have evolved. When I put in my 'L' prints they were a mixture of darkroom and digital, with varied papers. I don't think that would be a very good idea today. When the difficulties of dodging and burning in the darkroom, with a one-off result, are replaced by raw processing and digital adjustments, is it unreasonable to expect a high(er) standard of tonal rendering across an entire panel?

It is not just the standards which evolve (if they have). The whole process is under continual review. A recent change has been the introduction of referral. If a panel is close to passing, and would do so with some specific minor changes, then the applicant can be asked to make those changes and resubmit. The presumption is that the panel will pass when the changes are reviewed.

The Society wants people to reach the standards and pass distinctions. It does nobody any favours to have applicants fail because they were inadequately prepared. The distinctions handbook and the advisory days are part of the Society's offering to help people prepare. What they are not is training courses or mentoring. Whatever advice is given, the responsibility for the images and for the panel remains entirely that of the applicant. Only then can the applicant truly claim the distinction as their own personal achievement.

[PAW]

I have not been to an advisory day in years (got my 'A' a good few years ago - no idea what to do fir my 'F' yet!). But the one that I did attend prior to achieving my 'A' was not very helpful. It was in the old HQ and set up like an actual ARPS assessment with everyone watching rather like a camera club competition and no one-to-one helpful criticism. At this assessment my wife had put together some prints for a possible go at LRPS. Although she was told that she was about a 3rd of the way there, one of her favorite photos (and a well shot technically competent photo IMO) was dismissed as 'we have seen far too many of these' (or words to that effect it was some years ago - the photo was of a Bath street performer) so I have every sympathy with Ian's experience and am inclined to believe 'oh no not Cuba' again response!!!

[markbs]

Hi PAW,
I am sorry to hear your view, but I will not dismiss it merely because it was some time ago.
The feedback system on advisory days is quite pervasive. As an organiser, I know that any attendee or any advisor could comment to Distinctions if they think I have done a bad job organising the day. Likewise, the advisors know that any attendee or me as the organiser can comment to Distinctions if they think the advice given is inappropriate in either style or content. I agree with the several comments here that 'we have seen lots of that' (for example) is not appropriate because each author deserves to be judged individually on their skill.
'L' advice is easier to categorise as the actual assessment is done with a score sheet for the various skills. As I have said above, I want anyone coming for 'L' advice to clearly understand how and why their images do or do not reach the score sheet standards. If I think that isn't happening, then as the applicants' chairman on the day I would want to sort it out, either by a briefing directly to the advisors or by feedback later to Distinctions.
In return, would folks understand how easy it is for a comment to slip out. Giving advice is not easy when applicants hang onto every word and maybe over interpret or become selective in their recollections. That is why the information about the advice process is now handed out in hard copy rather than just being read out.
Everyone engaged in the advisory days is genuinely trying to make the experience helpful, and is also on the lookout for organisational problems which can be resolved for the future.

[Iancrowson]

The most informed reply from the RPS has being by markbs who has told us how things should be done at advisory days, thanks Mark.
I've given up. However I do feel it is about time the RPS got it's act together for the sake of those pursuing a distinction.

[newmanp]

hello Ian,
nice to see you in here too. the journey for the arps is a little bit like a search for the holy grail, i worked on three panels before i settled on a course i could have some degree of faith in. to be truthful i asked several arps and frps what the panel would be looking for in a visual arts submission and they all said the same. that couldnt put it in words but they would know if they saw it. and i believe thats how it is. i think the search for the answer is the bit that they really want you to do. there isnt a "Yoda" on the route who can tell you. once you seem to be on to something, the help seems to come more freely.

i went to two advisery days and from my postings after the first you may read i was frustrated too. i had made a panel that didnt convey enough of me and was more suited to documentary or applied. i suppose your Cuban panel would better fit travel than vis arts too. dont get bogged down by the statement of intent. keep it too a bare minimum. mine was litle more than 3 sentences.

of the two advisery days i attended, although frustrated by the first, i think i reflected long enough to see that the advice i had received was actually very good. i then realised i still had to come up with the ideas myself and that the advisers were not going to actually tell me what to do. and fired by the negative reaction to my first panel which i still like myself, i felt fired up to carry on the quest.

the second advisery day i attended at Newark was excellent and i had really great advice on how to tidy up my panel. however 2 others who attended that day were given positive comment and advised to apply when on the day neither were recommended.

i think i was probably lucky, i was the first to arrive for asseement on 5th march at focus and i was put first on the list. the panel commence with a set of reference pictures provided to establish the standard and being first after these stunning images i was understandably nervous. fortunately i was recommended and could sit back and enjoy the rest of the days submissions. i was surprised to a great extent at the differece of verbal opinions of the panel members and the strength with which they argue their case before voting. i was also surprised by some of the work which went through and equally surprised by some that didnt. now i have to bite my nails for a couple of weeks until im finally notified.

Phil Newman

This post has been edited by newmanp: 13 March 2013 - 09:06 AM

[levidog]

Firstly well done Phil, though I feel that your experiences pretty much sum up the questions that myself and others have struggled to get answers to.

Although Mark has given a very good answer from the organisers point of view though an offering from an ARPS assessor is still sadly missing. I have often promoted the view that people should go to an advisory day but I'm not sure now. If both of the people that were advised to apply were not recommended then they rather wasted their time and money didn't they?

To enter something that is undefined as the holy grail and the phrase "that couldn't put it in words but they would know if they saw it" seems to be appearing rather too commonly to be viable or even treated seriously.

That said,I don't think you were lucky, I think you worked hard to achieve an almost impossible criteria.


Continuing to be confused and more than a little jaded with the whole thing

Sean

[RichE]

levidog, on 13 March 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

Firstly well done Phil, though I feel that your experiences pretty much sum up the questions that myself and others have struggled to get answers to.

Although Mark has given a very good answer from the organisers point of view though an offering from an ARPS assessor is still sadly missing. I have often promoted the view that people should go to an advisory day but I'm not sure now. If both of the people that were advised to apply were not recommended then they rather wasted their time and money didn't they?

To enter something that is undefined as the holy grail and the phrase "that couldn't put it in words but they would know if they saw it" seems to be appearing rather too commonly to be viable or even treated seriously.

That said,I don't think you were lucky, I think you worked hard to achieve an almost impossible criteria.


Continuing to be confused and more than a little jaded with the whole thing

Sean

I totally agree Sean. It seems to be an interesting omission from the RPS who don't seem to feel the need to grace this Forum with their presence or comments (again). I didn't think that the Q's I posted as a response to some confusing messages coming from assessors were that difficult or awkward but still nothing has appeared and nobody has bothered to answer my questions.

The "know it if I see it" comment is ridiculous if you think about it. If it is the case then how on earth can the Society freely and happily run assessment days at all on the 'A' if that is the kind of advice given. It has to be rubbish otherwise it is a shameful and dishonest way of raising extra money for nothing and I am sure the Society are above that.

I repeat that I was quite happy and ok about what I thought was required having read the guidance on the main site and attending an 'A' assessment day. However, serious questions were raised by Richard's comments made in this forum and nobody, including Richard has had the decency to respond or assist with these concerns raised by me and others here.

Privately Ian has also contacted me and as of a couple of weeks ago, nobody from the RPS saw fit to contact him, help him or try to save him from leaving the Society. Not unusual I suppose but a shame all the same.

Kindest regards

Rich

[MariaL]

levidog, on 13 March 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

Firstly well done Phil, though I feel that your experiences pretty much sum up the questions that myself and others have struggled to get answers to.

Although Mark has given a very good answer from the organisers point of view though an offering from an ARPS assessor is still sadly missing. I have often promoted the view that people should go to an advisory day but I'm not sure now. If both of the people that were advised to apply were not recommended then they rather wasted their time and money didn't they?

To enter something that is undefined as the holy grail and the phrase "that couldn't put it in words but they would know if they saw it" seems to be appearing rather too commonly to be viable or even treated seriously.

That said,I don't think you were lucky, I think you worked hard to achieve an almost impossible criteria.


Continuing to be confused and more than a little jaded with the whole thing

Sean

Sean, please don't be jaded or confused!

if it helps, this is how I look at it...

1. Everyones images will be different, therefore you cannot have a 'right' or 'wrong' because a specified set of images to comply with is NOT what this is about.
2. Me, you & everyone knows, no matter how well your image conforms to the 'rules' (rule of thirds, golden section, etc.), sometimes they just don't work... somehow they don't hit the spot or speak to your heart in some way. Conversely, some images just 'work' despite being out of focus or not complying with what we understand. (I will use the Annie Leibovitz image of Sigourney Weaver in a body stocking - out of focus/motion blur, can't see her face, but it's a beautiful interpretation of a stunning woman, and it works brilliantly. Here is the link... http://www.google.co...UQ9QEwAQ&dur=10 You may not like it, but it goes back to photography being art...
3. And Photography is undoubtedly an art form and our interpretation of something we have seen. Let's be honest - getting someone to see things exactly how we do, even when thrashing out an idea in a meeting is hard enough... but getting the nuance and feeling into an image taken in a split second is sometimes overwhelmingly difficult. But golly, when we get it right, we know it! And isn't it an amazing feeling!!!
4. Personally, I am unable to be subjective about my own images... I am overly critical and pick up on every little fault and completely miss the good stuff. Perhaps joining a camera club will give you the motivation, critique and support you need to get going again.

I'm looking forward to hearing you've got your distinction. Just take your time and allow your favourite images to evolve...

I hope this helps
x

[markbs]

Rich,

You say that nobody from the Society is answering your questions or commenting via this Forum.
This Forum is really for anyone to join conversations with anyone else and I don't see it as a formal method of communicating between members and the Society. You cannot expect every member of staff and/or Council and/or Advisory Board to scan the Forum conversations and be ready to make a formal response. If you want to communicate with the Society you can do that directly or via your regional committee.
That said, I am a regional organiser firstly elected by my region, but then confirmed by Council. As such I am responsible for implementing the Society's policies and practices locally, and to that extent I am 'from the Society'. I think I have done quite a lot to respond to the comments raised in this thread. The other person 'from the Society' who has contributed is Richard Walton, but from the comments posted back at him I wouldn't blame him if he felt he now wants to stay on the sidelines.
The requirements for distinctions are published in the handbook. You can ask as many questions as you like about the interpretation of the handbook contents, but it is what it is and the content is based on long experience of the sort of questions people ask. There are also two training interactive videos for 'A' which show passing work and examples of problematic pictures. Particularly when you are aiming at 'A', authors have freedom to choose what they submit within the handbook guidelines. In the end there is a limit to how much handholding the Society can do for authors who are meant to be demonstrating their own personal expertise.
I do believe that 'you know it when you see it' is valid. But actually those are the easy ones, and I appreciate that there will be lots of less obvious panels which the assessors will accept. But then again, why leave yourself in the doubtful zone when submitting: why not aim to pass with confidence.

[RichE]

Hi Mark

I don't really expect someone to contribute and police every forum message but actually I don't think it is that difficult a job. Richard made one or two comments that left me and others confused. When he was asked to clarify he disappeared. I didn't see anyone posting any bad comments, just confused and seeking clarification. For goodness sakes, are these people that sensitive? He said something and others asked what he meant, that isn't having a go. The OP's day seemed to not run smoothly, take it on the chin and apologise and move on making sure it doesn't happen again.

All you say about aiming high etc is fine, I have no problems with that and can read the details in the handbook as i have done several times. Richard made specific comments, that I think were echoed by another assessor on Ian's day (the OP) that made reference to 'popular' subjects. I and others didn't and still don't understand it. I appreciate your comments on here and all have been noted but it is that specific issue, as I set out earlier that is very confusing and remains unanswered.

Should it be that Council Members and officials don't read these forums. Shouldn't it be a requirement of a Council Members role? Isn't it? I find it easy to read pretty much all posts in these forums, some i don't feel able to contribute to, some i do. In the commercial world this would always be done and an answer to a very clear and precise question would be given by the appropriate head of the department/subject concerned. They are hardly well frequented, 10 mins each evening usually does it.

I am not unclear on where the information for an 'A' lies or how to go about trying to get the said accreditation, however, Richard specifically and another assessor it is reported, made reference to 'popular' subjects and made some confusing points about that. I and a couple of others seek clarification. Why is that so bad or unpleasant? I could write to the Society formally or bring it up with my regional guy but it boils down to making things easy for members. That isn't easy for me and I simply won't bother entering and will become dissatisfied with my membership. As a couple of people have said on here, they wont be bothered and will disappear. Great. Another dissatisfied member.

Here is easier for everyone, the Society included. Its not a 'formal complaint' thing, just a coupla questions. Why is that so hard to reply to?

Not shooting the messenger Mark and appreciate your help and efforts but to be fair, you didn't make the comments and are not an assessor. I simply was seeking clarification - simple as!

Cheers

Rich

[newmanp]

I can understand what they mean, visual art has no real boundaries and is difficult to define, however it is often obvious when its seen. so what they are saying is develop an idea and they will confirm it the work is up to standard or whether its 15 images that are compromised in the attempt to make them fit a panel.

the concept of building a panel isnt that difficult to grasp when its been explained about facing in , corners that tone balance etc. its the subject thats difficult and thats the challange- to find your own way.

regarding comparisons with other similar panels, well thats bound to be the case. if several panels on similar themes are seen in a short space of time, then there is a line drawn as to how good it needs to be to compare. indeed each assesment sitting begins with a previously passed panel to establish a level of quality. the questions will often be associated with if you have taken a view in the way that many have before or have you made it your own. and is the statement reflecting what you present. i heard a wonderful satement on the 5th march but the pictures did not fully illustrate the statement because it was too long and whimsical.

Phil

This post has been edited by newmanp: 14 March 2013 - 12:57 PM

[RichE]

Hi Phil

I have to say that it is your last paragraph that confuses me. I thought that the the Distinction's were about me and MY photography. I cannot see anywhere in the handbooks any reference to what other panel's subject matter or style. How on earth would I know what has been seen previously. My panel is judged against a set of criteria that is consistent and repetitive isn't it? How on earth can it be compared with someone else's panel that I don't or won't know about.

If ten people enter an 'A' all taking portraits in mono with a similar lets say 'gritty' style, surely they would be assessed on their own merits and individually as a panel. Whether it was slightly better or worse than the last panel viewed or the last 9 panels viewed has to be irrelevant, if it passes all the necessary criteria then it passes doesn't it? Or am I really not getting this? It is not a competition against other Member's panels, it is an assessment against set criteria. Or is it that in the example above, Panel No.1 is absolutely superb in that 'style' and therefore all other 9 fail because they don't better No 1? What would happen if the best panel was seen last, would there be a different result for the other 9?

The handbook states a 'personal' style, it doesn't say that that style cannot be similar to thousands of others seen previously. Most styles are similar to something. Very very few are new or unique. But what you seem to be saying is that if an assessor has seen a 'style' similar to mine in the past, my panel has to be better! Why?

I am sorry and I truly am not trying to be obtuse about this but it seems to be totally alien to what the Distinction Handbooks say and direct. I understand everything else about quality and 'style' and coherence etc etc I just really don't get this.

Why does a panel of oft taken subjects have to be 'better' than the last one seen? The standard is the standard. If someone vastly excels the standard then great but surely that cannot become the new benchmark. If it does then the whole system is wrong and I don't believe it is. However, several people seem to think that popular subjects and approaches mean the goalposts keep on and on moving. I grant that OVERALL standards may increase with time as a natural progression and as the criteria are reformed and improved but not specific subjects at unknown times because it happens to be popular!

Rich

[shiny]

Hi Rich E,

NOTHING MORE THAN AN OPINION.
REfs- http://www.youtube.c...h?v=gsMVrZh6ewU

http://www.youtube.c...n0ZL6vw&index=1

I'm not alone in struggling to define a great or magical picture/s. Joe McNally is one of the best most respected photographers working today.

I've not read and fully digested all comments by all members, but I will agree that Mark B comments seem to hit the mark , be fair and accurate (from my limited experience). There is no one path to the A and F distinctions and the more that one is led by the hand to achieve them the more they are devalued. . . . .as it may easily becomes the work and inspiration of a team .....rather than that of an individual.

Many a time I recall hearing from "F" s that no one would tell what was wrong or right with their portfolio but that they must find the path to follow from within.( Or words to that effect).

Goalposts do move. The technical standard achieved by Fox talbot might well, not pass as adequate for an LRPS today. Materials, cameras etc. have moved on and so must we. That does not mean that I am a fan of manipulation etc. etc. as many, (the general public), regard photography today simply as photoshop & injet trickery.......and often poor trickery at that. This has devalued photography. A bit like everyone being able to do magic , just like a magician.

For the society to maintain its status and credibility, standards should be maintained or rise.

Regards

Shiny

[RichE]

Hi Shiny

Thanks for the links, good stuff indeed!

As I have said above however, I am not having issues with the requirement overall or the 'magic' or 'feel' or 'style' needed/required. My issue is as stated above with 'popular' subjects.

Of course I expect standards to raise over time but they must only raise as the criteria and approaches are changed centrally. They CANNOT surely change in an ad hoc unpublished way, otherwise how will anyone know what the current standard is?

I am a fan of manipulation but that is a whole different debate and for another time. My comments are linked purely to the remarks made by assessors and others on here who seem to think that popular subjects need an ever improving quality/style and this simply doesn't make any sense to me.

Regards

Rich

[Iancrowson]

Well done Phil, congrats. I've seen your panel, not only is it excellent it is very different to the style and subject I associated with your photography. You nailed it.

I acknowledge that I was unlucky with this advisory day. I had previously attended more useful days. (one with an L panel and one with a different visual arts A panel)

[markbs]

Ian, It is preferred practice at advisory days that only one advisor comments on each panel. Otherwise there is a risk of mixed messages. Part of the difficulty here is that the system is set up to deliver in a particular way and you either didn't realise that or you disagree with it.
For others on this thread I have asked that someone from the Distinctions Advisory Board reviews the content here and responds, because I have run out of useful comments.

[Richard Walton]

markbs, on 19 March 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

Ian, It is preferred practice at advisory days that only one advisor comments on each panel. Otherwise there is a risk of mixed messages. Part of the difficulty here is that the system is set up to deliver in a particular way and you either didn't realise that or you disagree with it.
For others on this thread I have asked that someone from the Distinctions Advisory Board reviews the content here and responds, because I have run out of useful comments.

Purely for the record, like Mark, I have also asked Bath to get involved in this thread. As there is quite obviously a difference of opinion as to what actually happened on the day in question, I decided at an early stage that I had nothing further to contribute that would have been a useful addition.

This post has been edited by Richard Walton: 19 March 2013 - 08:40 PM

[Iancrowson]

I don't see that I or individual members can really add much in this forum, I will email Mark. This thread has raised a number of points beyond those I would wish to make.
I not sure about forum etiquette here, but stuff is being said that I would not necessarily endorse.
I suggest it is closed